I sense this is another anti-automobile / car-hostile writer who tries to throw as much at the reader as they can and hopes something will stick. Ostensibly, th

I sense this is another anti-automobile / car-hostile writer who tries to throw as much at the reader as they can and hopes something will stick. Ostensibly, the piece is about how larger cars are more dangerous because of reduced visibility. On its own, that argument is worth considering. However the author brings in a myriad of tenuous and character smearing implications. It didn't take long for the author to veer into a 'people who buy big cars are actually bigots' angle: >"The consequences of the bigger-is-better fad are felt unequally. Black and Indigenous people are disproportionately hit and killed while walking, as are older Americans, people with disabilities, and people who live in low-income neighborhoods. The low social status of these victims—especially compared with that of wealthier new-car buyers—may help explain why we’ve been willing to ignore auto-industry excesses." She also leans into the implication that people who drive big vehicles are lizard-brain brutes: "Without any intervention from regulators, the attempt to appeal to the “reptilian” impulse has only grown." Or, toxic masculinity: "the hyperaggressive macho-truck trend has been enormously profitable for the auto industry".